Guess that Plane! Resurrection!

  • Thread starter Mike Rotch
  • 881 comments
  • 33,164 views
ah. YF-12C it is then. thank you, google. ^_^ so, it was part of DRYDEN-project after all, eh?

edit:
Ultimately, 935 became the workhorse of the program, with 146 flights between 11 December 1969 and 7 November 1979. The second YF-12A, 936, made 62 flights. It was lost in a non-fatal crash on 24 June 1971. It was replaced by the so-called YF-12C (SR-71A 61-7951, modified with YF-12A inlets and engines and a bogus tail number 06937).
Click to expand...
 
42jg8ev.jpg


there you go. it wasn't the weirdest I found, but have fun while hunting that one.👍
 
*phew* that took some serious researching! But I got it in the end. :D

Avro 730 is the answer, a planned British Mach 3 reconnaissance aircraft and bomber for the Royal Air Force. It was cancelled in 1957 along with other development on manned aircraft as part of the 1957 Defence White Paper.

Due to my great absence on these forums someone else can post the next one.

- R -
 
As always, off the cuff with no research:

Macchi C205?

Grrr, there's a Swedish number I can't come up with.
 
Nope, a DB605 engine though.

Actually I think I should begin a new thread about this as this one is quite huge already and I seem to be pretty much the most active guy in here... or would that be unnecessary and clutter up the forums?

- R -
 
What in the...

I've never seen a BF-109 with landing gear that widely spaced before, so I guess it's not strictly a 109. Is this like my YF-12 that wasn't a YF-12 earlier? :odd:
 
jammyozzy - Nope, it's not a '109 but a foreign development of it. This was a good plane with a performance similar to that of the Bf109G but with considerably better manoeuvrability and ground handling...

philly cheese - Not a '209 either, a lot later model and not a Messerschmitt at all.

- R -
 
Not to turn this into a guessing game but how about the Ki-61? I found 3 foreign variants and this was the only one with the correct landing gear configuration. You really have a tough one here.
 
Coming in from nowhere and with no research:

Wings, and canopy are wrong for a P-51D.
This one looks like it it has a prop cannon, but no wing cannon.
(May be a trick of position).
I'm relatively sure no Mustang came so equipped. Unless it's the P-51A
which didn't have the "bubble" canopy of the 51D.
 
The P-51D-15 Mustang would be just a usual D model Mustang, the last number indicates only some small technical changes that haven't been remarkable enough to justify a new subtype.

Gil, you are exactly right in all points you make there. The wings and the canopy are wrong for a Mustang because the plane is anything but a Mustang. :P It really has a prop cannon and no wing guns. No Mustang ever had a cannon firing through the spinner.

As I said before, it's a DB605 engined development of the Bf109G.
philly cheese
You really have a tough one here.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I think I have an impossible one here. :D

- R -
 
Greycap
To be honest, I think I have an impossible one here. :D
Click to expand...

Nope. Just really tough. It's a Finnish VL Pyörremyrsky.

Details: Made using wood extensively because metal was rather rare at the time. It could outclimb the BF109 and was just as manouverable. Landing gear was widened for easier ground control. However, the prototype was grounded after 30 hours of flight because of a lack of funds and a supply of BF109s sufficient for the Finnish fighter force. Quality was poor; a low quality glue was used which eventually resulted in a piece of wood coming off 25 min into its maiden flight:eek:.
 
Congratulations!

It was a tough one and it was meant to be, only one ever being produced. Quite a shame though, it was a good plane that would certainly have been able to take on the Yaks and La's on equal terms. We even had a VL Puuska (gust in English, Pyörremyrsky translates as whirlwind) in development that was going to be a very small, fast climbing interceptor. However, as the Pyörremyrsky was cancelled the Puuska never flew.

That "piece of wood coming off" sounds worse that it actually was, and it wasn't wood at all... it was a part of the engine cowling that fell off, nothing too dramatical aerodynamically.

That was a great catch, feel free to post the next one! 👍

- R -
 
Hey, there have been lots of interesting planes posted, and perhaps I shouldn't even be saying this, but...

The original point of the contest was to see how much you could identify off the top of your head, with no research (just like Gil did above). I realize that's hard to enforce on the 'net, and it may not even be that fun for everybody, so I'm willing to continue on with the extremely obscure stuff we've been seeing.

And I want to give BIG thanks to Greycap for keeping this thread alive!
 
Was it the Wildcat or the Hellcat that was a tandem 2 seater?
Whichever one it is, that plane looks like the other one.:D
That single wing cannon is strange. To my knowlege, almost all American fighting planes had 2-3 cannons per wing.
That with the exception of your "weirdo" planes like the P-38 and the P-61.
 
Gil
Was it the Wildcat or the Hellcat that was a tandem 2 seater?
Whichever one it is, that plane looks like the other one.:D
Click to expand...
Actually, both the Wildcat (F4F) and its replacement, the Hellcat (F6F) were single-seat fighters.
That single wing cannon is strange. To my knowlege, almost all American fighting planes had 2-3 cannons per wing.
Click to expand...
That's because they weren't cannons, they were .50 caliber machine guns; in fact, the same M50 ones swivel mounted on jeeps and Shermans, and carried by heavy infantry. Very few (if any) American fighters used cannons. That was more of a European thing (Allied and Axis) for whatever reason.

Now, back on the topic of Greycap's excellent new submission, it's one of my favorites. It looks really great in the air! Australia's own...

Commonwealth Boomerang (I forget the numeric designation)
 

Latest Posts

Back